DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Jurisdiction in Australian Courts: Policies and Prospects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Jurisdiction in Australian Courts: Policies and Prospects South Carolina Law Review Volume 46 Issue 5 Article 7 Summer 1995 Federal Jurisdiction in Australian Courts: Policies and Prospects Brian R. Opeskin University of Sydney Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian R. Opeskin, Federal Jurisdiction in Australian Courts: Policies and Prospects, 46 S. C. L. Rev. 765 (1995). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Opeskin: Federal Jurisdiction in Australian Courts: Policies and Prospects Federal Jurisdiction in Australian Courts: Policies and Prospects Brian R. Opeskidn I. INTRODUCTION Like the United States Constitution on which it was modelled, the Australian Constitution defines a certain class of legal disputes as matters of federal jurisdiction. Enumerated in Sections 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution, these matters are the subject of "the judicial power of the Commonwealth" and include amongst other things questions of constitutional interpretation, questions arising under federal law, and diversity suits.' It is somewhat curious that the drafters of the Australian Constitution chose to single out this class of matters for special treatment because the factors that motivated their disparate treatment in the United States were generally absent in Australia. At the time of Australia's federation in 1901, each state had a well-established court system, and there was little reason to fear partiality or parochialism in the way these courts might dispense justice in matters affecting * B. Comm Hons. LL.B. New South Wales; B.C.L. Oxon; Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney; Barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. I am indebted to James Crawford, David Harland, Leslie Katz, Pat Lane, Therese Mac Dermott, Sir Anthony Mason, Keith Mason, and Ronald McCallum for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. I also wish to thank Ruth Davis for her generous research assistance, funded by the Law Foundation of New South Wales. 1. These matters are defined in sections 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution as follows: 75. In all matters- (i.) Arising under any treaty: (ii.) Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries: (iii.) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party: (iv.) Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State: (v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth: the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. 76. The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter- (i.) Arising under this Constitution or involving its interpretation: (ii.) Arising under any laws made by the Parliament: (iii.) Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction: (iv.) Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States. AUSTL. CONST. ch. III, §§ 75-76. Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 1 South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 46, Iss. 5 [2020], Art. 7 SOUTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 46:765 the newly formed Commonwealth.2 Notwithstanding these differences, the constitutional drafters followed the American precedent, a decision that profoundly effected the development of the Australian judicial system. The Australian Constitution clearly contemplates that federal courts may adjudicate matters of federal jurisdiction. First, the Constitution itself confers original jurisdiction on the High Court, which is a federal court, in some matters of federal jurisdiction.3 Second, the Constitution grants the Common- wealth Parliament the power to create additional federal courts4 and to define the jurisdiction of those courts with respect to any matters within federal jurisdiction.' These powers would have enabled the Parliament to establish an extensive system of federal courts exercising jurisdiction in all matters of federal jurisdiction. However, unlike the United States, the Parliament did not undertake this course in Australia. With the exception of the High Court, which Parliament established soon after federation, there are only three federal courts in Australia. In their current incarnation, they are of comparatively recent origin.6 Far from exercising jurisdiction over the full range of matters enumerated in sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution, these federal courts have had jurisdiction conferred on them in a restricted and rather specialized range of federal matters. Federal courts were not the only courts that the constitutional drafters contemplated as exercising federal jurisdiction. In a marked departure from the template of the United States Constitution, the drafters of the Australian Constitution expressly allowed Parliament to invest any state court with federal jurisdiction. 7 This power, which has strikingly but inaccurately been called the "autochthonous expedient,"' was thought to be a sensible alternative to the 2. See JOHN QUICK & ROBERT R. GARRAN, ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH 804 (photo. reprint 1976) (1901); ZELMAN COWEN & LESLIE ZINES, FEDERAL JURISDICTION INAUSTRALIA Xv-vi, 175 (2d ed. 1978). 3. The Constitution confers jurisdiction on the High Court in § 75 matters, and Parliament may confer additionaljurisdiction on the High Court in § 76 matters. AUSTL. CONST. §§ 75-76. 4. Id. § 71. 5. Id. § 77(i). 6. The federal courts are the Family Court of Australia established in 1975, the Federal Court of Australia Court] established in 1976 and the Industrial Relations Court of Australia established in 1994. The Federal Bankruptcy Court established in 1928 previously exercised the bankruptcy jurisdiction which is currently exercised by the Federal Court. The labor law jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court was previously exercised by the Federal Court, and before that by the Commonwealth Industrial Court. The latter was established in 1956 and renamed the Australian Industrial Court in 1973. 7. AUSTL. CONST. § 77(iii). 8. The Queen v. Kirby, Exparte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, 94 C.L.R. 254, 268 (1956). The exercise of federal jurisdiction by state courts is not unique to Australia. In the United States, state courts are assumed to have concurrent jurisdiction in the adjudication and enforcement of federal law unless jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly made exclusive to the federal courts. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 (1962); Claflin v. Houseman, https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol46/iss5/7 2 Opeskin: Federal Jurisdiction in Australian Courts: Policies and Prospects 19951 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL JURISDICTION financial and administrative costs of establishing a separate system of federal courts to adjudicate the new class of federal matters established by the Constitution. The federal legislature exercised this power in 1903 and conferred jurisdiction on "the several Courts of the States" in virtually all matters of federal jurisdiction. 9 Even today state courts deal with a significant proportion of federal matters in both civil and criminal cases. The provision in the Australian Constitution authorizing the exercise of federal jurisdiction by either federal or state courts, as Parliament might choose, gives rise to the central questions addressed in this paper. In Australia the relationship between state and federal courts has often been a sensitive one. In part this sensitive relationship is due to differences in the terms and conditions of judicial office but is also due to differences in the nature of the day-to-day work of those courts. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception that the trial work of some federal courts is more varied and stimulating than that of the state courts. Because the nature of the work undertaken by state and federal courts is in part a function of the distribution of federal jurisdiction between them, judges often have been concerned with the way in which Parliament exercises its power to confer federal jurisdiction on state and federal courts. In particular, state court judges have frequently expressed concern about the erosion of the jurisdiction and status of state courts at the hands of the federal legislature.'0 The potential for the Commonwealth Parliament to affect thejurisdictional balance between federal and state courts has grown tremendously in recent years. The reason for this is that, although the heads of federal jurisdiction are fixed by the terms of the Constitution, the range of matters falling within those heads has continued to expand. One such head of federal jurisdiction is section 76(ii) which makes any matter arising under federal law a matter of federal jurisdiction." In Australia, the role of the federal legislature in regulating commercial and private life has steadily increased throughout this century. In the United States, the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause has shifted the balance of legislative power toward central government. As in the United States, Australian courts have interpreted the various heads of federal legislative power in a manner that has permitted an ever-expanding role for federal legislative action."2 Earlier this century, state law principally 93 U.S. 130 (1876); Martin H. Redish & John E. Muench, Adjudication of Federal Causes of Action in State Court,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Briefing Paper No 27/96 the Kable Case: Implications for New South Wales
    NSW PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE Briefing Paper No 27/96 The Kable Case: Implications for New South Wales by 0 Gareth Griffith NSW PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE Dr David Clune (9230 2484), Manager Ms Honor Figgis (9230 2768) Research Officer, Law Dr Gareth Griffith (9230 2356) Senior Research Officer, Politics and Government Ms Fiona Manning (9230 3085) Research Officer, Law/Social Issues Mr Stewart Smith (9230 2798) Research Officer, Environment Ms Marie Swain (9230 2003) Research Officer, Law Mr John Wilkinson (9230 2006) Research Officer, Economics ISSN 1325-5142 ISBN 0 7310 5969 7 © 1996 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent from the Librarian, New South Wales Parliamentary Library, other than by Members of the New South Wales Parliament in the course of their official duties. Should Members or their staff require further information about this publication please contact the author. October 1996 Briefing Paper is published by the NSW Parliamentary Library CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 2 Background to the decision 4 3 The main issues in the case 5 4 Separation of powers and the States 6 5 The High Court's decision in Kahle 's case - the majority view 10 6 The High Court's decision in Kahle 's case - the minority view 16 7 The implications of Kable 's case for NSW 17 8 Conclusions 23 Appendix - Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to acknowledge the helpful contributions of Professor George Winterton of the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia
    Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium Chief Justice Robert French AC 7 October 2016, Canberra Thank you for inviting me to deliver the opening address at this Colloquium. It is the first and last time I will do so as Chief Justice. The soft pink tones of the constitutional sunset are deepening and the dusk of impending judicial irrelevance is advancing upon me. In a few weeks' time, on 25 November, it will have been thirty years to the day since I was commissioned as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The great Australian legal figures who sat on the Bench at my official welcome on 10 December 1986 have all gone from our midst — Sir Ronald Wilson, John Toohey, Sir Nigel Bowen and Sir Francis Burt. Two of my articled clerks from the 1970s are now on the Supreme Court of Western Australia. One of them has recently been appointed President of the Court of Appeal. They say you know you are getting old when policemen start looking young — a fortiori when the President of a Court of Appeal looks to you as though he has just emerged from Law School. The same trick of perspective leads me to see the Judicial Conference of Australia ('JCA') as a relatively recent innovation. Six years into my judicial career, in 1992, I attended a Supreme and Federal Courts Judges' Conference at which Justices Richard McGarvie and Ian Sheppard were talking about the establishment of a body to represent the common interests and concerns of judges, to defend the judiciary as an institution and, where appropriate, to defend individual judges who were the target of unfair and unwarranted criticisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Un Day Lecture – 2019
    UN DAY LECTURE – 2019 25 YEARS OF CROSS BORDER INSOLVENCY LAW REFORM 1994–2019 Since 1994, UNCITRAL has been developing model laws on Cross Border Insolvency (CBI), which have been adopted in Australia and most leading economies. These laws support globalisation of world trade by providing for cooperation in international insolvencies, through a process of mutual recognition by courts of foreign insolvency regimes and representatives. This year’s UN Day Lecture series will outline how the CBI framework operates, and examine the contribution made by Australian courts and practitioners to many of the developments in this field over the past quarter-century. The UN Day Lecture series is an annual initiative of the UNCITRAL National Coordination Committee for Australia (UNCCA) to highlight the work of UNCITRAL for practitioners and students. A Lecture will be held in each Australian capital city, with a local speaking panel. Light refreshments will be available afterwards, sponsored by the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA). Your city’s details are set out below. Registration is required, with a fee for non-members of $25 and students of $5. There is no charge for members of UNCCA, ARITA, the Judiciary, court staff or the APS. Application will be made, where required, for CPD accreditation. PROGRAMME Wednesday 23rd October 2019: 5.00pm – 6.15 pm BRISBANE Venue: Federal Court of Australia, Court 1 Chair: Justice Roger Derrington Speaker: Adjunct Professor Rosalind Mason Queensland University of Technology Commentator: Scott Butler, McCullough Robertson HOBART Venue: Federal Court of Australia, Court 1 Chair: Justice Duncan Kerr Speaker: Tim D.
    [Show full text]
  • International Production Orders) Bill 2020 (The Bill), for the Committee’S Consideration
    Table of Contents Overview of submission ................................................................................................................... 3 Advantages over existing crime cooperation arrangements .......................................................... 3 Issuing IPOs – accountable and independent decision making....................................................... 5 Persona designata functions ......................................................................................................... 5 IPOs for national security purposes ............................................................................................. 7 The establishment of an Australian Designated Authority (ADA) ................................................... 9 Safeguards – human rights and data protection/privacy .............................................................. 10 Death penalty safeguards ............................................................................................................ 10 Other safeguards ......................................................................................................................... 11 Data protection and privacy ...................................................................................................... 11 Evidentiary requirements .............................................................................................................. 13 Evidentiary certificates ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Megan Evetts CV 2019 Copy
    Megan Evetts Barrister-at-law, Nigel Bowen Chambers Background and Practice Overview Megan has over nine years of litigation experience. She has predominantly practiced in intellectual property law, but also has experience in other areas of commercial and migration law. Prior to being called to the Bar, Megan was Associate to the Hon Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia. During that time, she had exposure to a wide variety of legal cases, in both first instance and appellate jurisdictions. This included intellectual property, admiralty, migration and general commercial law cases. Megan has also previously been a Senior Associate in MinterEllison’s intellectual property disputes team; in-house IP Counsel for a major international generic pharmaceutical company (Hospira, now Pfizer); and solicitor at King & Wood Mallesons. Megan has substantial experience in intellectual property litigation, intellectual property advisory work and patent and trade mark prosecution. Examples of significant cases that she has been involved in include the High Court appeal of AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd, regarding pharmaceutical patents for cholesterol drug rosuvastatin (Crestor); the first patent repair case in Australia, Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd; and the trade mark dispute Singtel Optus Pty Limited v Optum Inc. Megan is also a Trade Mark Attorney and holds a Bachelor of Biomedical Science and Bachelor of Laws (Hons) from Monash University. Admissions Barrister 2019 High Court of Australia 2012 Supreme Court of Victoria 2012 Professional Experience Federal Court of Australia Associate to the Hon Justice Burley 2018-2019 Sydney MinterEllison Senior Associate 2016-2018 Melbourne Associate 2014-2015 Lipman Karas Associate 2015-2016 Adelaide Hospira (now part of Pfizer) IP Legal Counsel 2014-2015 Melbourne (Secondee, then part-time employee) King & Wood Mallesons Solicitor 2012-2013 Melbourne Houlihan2 Trade Mark Attorney 2008-2012 Melbourne Technical Assistant Monash University, Physiology Dep.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives By-Elections 1902-2002
    INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND ADVICE FOR THE PARLIAMENT INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Current Issues Brief No. 15 2002–03 House of Representatives By-elections 1901–2002 DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY ISSN 1440-2009 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2003 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Current Issues Brief No. 15 2002–03 House of Representatives By-elections 1901–2002 Gerard Newman, Statistics Group Scott Bennett, Politics and Public Administration Group 3 March 2003 Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Murray Goot, Martin Lumb, Geoff Winter, Jan Pearson, Janet Wilson and Diane Hynes in producing this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Judges and Retirement Ages
    JUDGES AND RETIREMENT AGES ALYSIA B LACKHAM* All Commonwealth, state and territory judges in Australia are subject to mandatory retirement ages. While the 1977 referendum, which introduced judicial retirement ages for the Australian federal judiciary, commanded broad public support, this article argues that the aims of judicial retirement ages are no longer valid in a modern society. Judicial retirement ages may be causing undue expense to the public purse and depriving the judiciary of skilled adjudicators. They are also contrary to contemporary notions of age equality. Therefore, demographic change warrants a reconsideration of s 72 of the Constitution and other statutes setting judicial retirement ages. This article sets out three alternatives to the current system of judicial retirement ages. It concludes that the best option is to remove age-based limitations on judicial tenure. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 739 II Judicial Retirement Ages in Australia ................................................................... 740 A Federal Judiciary .......................................................................................... 740 B Australian States and Territories ............................................................... 745 III Criticism of Judicial Retirement Ages ................................................................... 752 A Critiques of Arguments in Favour of Retirement Ages ........................
    [Show full text]
  • National Security and Human Rights
    DEAKIN LAW SCHOOL ORATION 2004 NATIONAL SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS * PHILIP RUDDOCK I INTRODUCTION My predecessor, Alfred Deakin, after whom this Oration and this University are named, became Australia’s first Attorney-General in 1901. He subsequently became Prime Minister in 1903. I think it says something about Alfred Deakin that this is one of a number of lectures named in his honour. The Melbourne University Lib- eral Club established a lecture trust in his honour in 1967 -- their lectures continue today. In 2001, the Victorian Government held a series of lectures as part of the centenary of Federation celebrations and in 2005, there will be a further series of lectures named after Deakin dealing with innovation. What makes Deakin the touchstone that these institutions seek to draw inspiration from? I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Deakin was a great 19 th century Victo- rian liberal. As Harold Holt observed in 1967: in those turbulent days when the life of the colony was raw and privilege rated high, the liberals spoke for most of the people against the entrenched representatives of the aristocracy of wealth and property…1 * Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Deakin Law School Oration was held at The McInerney Lecture Theatre, Toorak Campus of Deakin University, Thursday, 19 August 2004. 296 DEAKIN LAW REVIEW VOLUME 9 NO 2 As a minister in the Victorian Parliament, he sought to improve the conditions of workers in factories and was President of the anti-sweating league. Deakin’s liberalism is evident in the laws he promoted as a Commonwealth Minis- ter such as the Customs Act 1901, the Judiciary Act 1902 and the High Court Pro- cedure Act 1903.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Conduct: Crafting a System That Enhances Institutional Integrity
    JUDICIAL CONDUCT: CRAFTING A SYSTEM THAT ENHANCES INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY GABRIELLE APPLEBY* AND SUZANNE LE M IRE† Judges are human. It is their humanity that allows them to pass judgement on the complexities of fact and law in cases before them. However, their humanity also means they are subject to the usual gamut of human frailties. Problematic judicial conduct remains rare in Australia. However, failing to acknowledge and address it has the potential to damage the integrity of the courts and undermine the ability of individual judges to fulfil the judicial function. In this article we examine the requirements for a ‘good’ complaints system through a comparative analysis of systems operating in Australia and overseas. We proffer an alternative system for Australia, tailored to fit within our constitutional constraints whilst promoting the institutional integrity of the judiciary. CONTENTS I Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 II Judicial Misconduct and Incapacity: Scope and Categories ................................... 5 A Incapacity .......................................................................................................... 9 B Misconduct and Misbehaviour .................................................................... 12 1 Prior to Taking Judicial Office ......................................................... 12 2 During Judicial Office — On the Bench ........................................ 12 * LLB (Hons) (UQ), LLM
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Misleading and Unconscionable Conduct
    NATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW SEMINAR SERIES Recent Developments in Misleading and Unconscionable Conduct The expert panel will discuss recent appellate authorities on misleading or deceptive conduct and statutory unconscionable conduct, including ASIC v Kobelt (High Court) and ACCC v Medibank (Full Federal Court). This seminar will provide an insight into the presenters’ differing perspectives – academic, corporate lawyer and regulatory lawyer. CHAIR The Honourable Justice Michael O'Bryan Date: Wednesday, 16 October 2019 Judge, Federal Court of Australia Time: 5.15pm – 6.15pm PRESENTERS Venue: Court 8A, Federal Court of Australia Professor Bryan Horrigan, Dean, Monash Law Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts School and member of the Australian Government Building 305 William Street, Melbourne Panel whose recommendations led to reform of the law of statutory unconscionability RSVP: Monday 14 October 2019, online at Caroline Coops, Partner, King & Wood Mallesons https://forms.gle/LcWtKURmLo9v2b9c6 Katrina Close, Melbourne Director, Australian Government Solicitor The Federal Court of Australia will video cast the seminar to the following locations, pending registrations. Adelaide Brisbane Canberra Darwin 16 October 2019 at 4:45 pm 16 October 2019 at 5:15 pm 16 October 2019 at 5:15 pm 16 October 2019 at 4:45 pm ACST Federal Court of AEST Federal Court of AEST Federal Court of ACST Federal Court of Australia Courtroom No.3 Australia Courtroom No.2 Australia Courtroom No. 1 Australia Courtroom No.9 Roma Mitchell Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Nigel Bowen
    [Show full text]
  • Billy Snedden: the Challenge of Incipient Inflation
    Billy Snedden: the challenge of incipient inflation John Hawkins1 Billy Snedden was Treasurer in very challenging circumstances, with the global financial system undergoing intense change and the government in which he served in political difficulty. This made it hard for him to address effectively the emerging inflationary pressures. Source: National Library of Australia2 1 The author formerly worked in the Domestic Economy Division of Treasury. This article has benefited from comments and suggestions provided by Selwyn Cornish, Ian Hancock and Fiona Snedden. Thanks are due to the Snedden family for allowing access to the Snedden papers in the National Library of Australia. The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Australian Treasury. 2 B.M. Snedden, Liberal Party member for Bruce, Victoria [picture]/Australian Information Service, Bib ID: 3660355 21 Billy Snedden: the challenge of incipient inflation Introduction Sir Billy Mackie Snedden was generally regarded as ‘affable, charming, friendly’3 and many contemporary accounts refer to his good looks.4 He possessed considerable ambition5 and all his life was a hard worker.6 Friends recalled him as having ‘a quick mind which absorbs and retains detail’.7 These traits allowed him to rise from his humble origins and become a Liberal Treasurer and leader without the benefits of the family wealth or establishment links that assisted peers such as William McMahon and Malcolm Fraser. He once described himself as ‘the first of the middle class radicals’.8 His weakness was his need to be liked and approved, and that he was ‘too trusting and insufficiently ruthless for his own good’.9 This sometimes left him trying to present a toughness he did not possess.10 Snedden had a lifelong aversion to ‘bullying’.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: Fair Work No: ACD97/2017
    Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: Fair Work No: ACD97/2017 CATHERINE DUCK Applicant AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA Respondent ORDER JUDGE: JUSTICE BROMWICH DATE OF ORDER: 19 October 2018 WHERE MADE: Sydney UPON THE UNDERTAKING: by each of Augusta Ventures Limited, the applicant and Adero Law (Adero) to each other and to the Court, in the terms set out in Annexure A to this order (being that they will comply with their obligations under the Funding Terms (being Annexure B to this order) and the terms of orders 1 and 2), copies of which, signed by each of Augusta Ventures Limited, the applicant and Adero Law, are to be filed within seven days of the date of this order, THE COURT ORDERS THAT: Common Fund 1. Pursuant to s 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act), subject to a further order, upon Resolution (as defined in the Funding Terms) the applicant and group members pay from any Resolution Sum (as defined in the Funding Terms), the amounts referred to in sub-clauses 6(a) to (c) of the Funding Terms prior to any distribution to group members, in accordance with the Funding Terms. 2. Upon Resolution, the aggregate amount payable by the applicant and group members pursuant to order 1 is not to exceed the aggregate amount that would otherwise have been payable by the applicant and group members in the event that order 1 had not been made. Prepared in the Australian Capital Territory District Registry, Federal Court of Australia Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Building, Childers Street, Telephone 02 6267 0666 - 2 - Opt Out 3.
    [Show full text]